major disruptions. We will need all the time we can reasonably expect to get to implement the revision bill, and early enactment of H.R. 7149 would help us a good deal in this connection. I therefore urge favorable consideration of H.R. 7149 as soon as possible. No one welcomes higher fees, but I believe there is general recognition of the need of a revised copyright fee schedule and the merit of the other proposals incorporated in the bill. Yours sincerely, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, BARBARA RINGER, Register of Copyrights. THE AUTHORS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN KASTEN MEIER: The Authors League of America strongly urges immediate enactment of H.R. 7149, to change Copyright Office Fees and permit registration of unpublished literary works under the present law. These changes also are provided in the Copyright Revision Bill; but for the reasons indicated below, they should not be deferred until the Revision Bill is enacted and takes effect. H.R. 7149 would increase the Copyright Office fees for registrations of original and renewal copyrights, assignments, searchers and other services. Needless to say, authors would prefer to pay $6 instead of $10 to register a copyright, $4 instead of $6 to register a renewal copyright. However, the Copyright Office has described the economic conditions which compelled it to request these increases; and present policy requires it to look to its fees as one of its major sources of funding. As the national society of professional writers and dramatists, the Authors League firmly supports H.R. 7149 because it eliminates a glaring inequity of the present Act which imposes a heavy financial penalty on authors who write works which are first published in periodicals and newspapers. During a 12 month period: a poet may have several poems published in various journals; several articles or short stories by the same author may appear in periodicals; or many cartoons or drawings by an artist may be published in a magazine or newspaper. Under the present Coypright Act, the author, poet or cartoonist must file a separate copyright renewal application and pay a separate fee for each story, article, poem or cartoon; the same requirement applies to his registration of original copyrights. Thus, a poet must pay as much to register the renewal copyright in a one-page poem as a large motion picture company pays to register the renewal copyright in Gone With the Wind. The author of a five-page short story or article must pay as much to register its renewal copyright as a publisher pays to register the renewal copyright in a 1,000 page encylopedia. Authors of poetry, articles, short stories and cartoons must write and publish several short works each year to earn a living. The requirement that the copyright and renewal copyright in each work be registered and paid for separately imposes a heavy and discriminatory burden on them. Frequently an author or his/her surviving family must spend large sums each year to register renewal copyrights in several short works. Over a peeriod of years, the cost of preserving renewal copyright protection may mount to hundreds of dollars. This cost cannot be escaped since some of these short works earn a significant portion of their modest income in the later part of an author's life through licenses to reprint them in anthologies and other collections. The author or family must renew copyright in all of them, to make sure that those that may be productive will be protected. H.R. 7149 will rescue such authors from this onerous and discriminating burden. The Bill incorporates a reform suggested by the Authors League to the Copyright Office. Adopting this suggestion, the Bill prepared by the Copyright Office would permit an author of poems, articles, short stories and other periodical contributions to group together several of his works published in the same 12 month period and register them at one time for a single fee. For example, six short poems originally published in periodicals during a 12-month period could be registered for renewal at the same time for a $6 fee, rather than $36 in separate fees. More than one such group registration could be made in the same 12 month period. This is a much-needed reform, and the Authors League is deeply grateful to Ms. Barbara Ringer, the Register of Copyrights, and Mr. John G. Lorentz, the Acting Librarian of Congress, for incorporating and implementing it in H.R. 7149.. It should be emphasized that even when the Revision Bill is passed, authors of then-existing copyrights will have to renew them; this means another 28 years of renewal. The Bill makes another needed change in the present provisions. It would permit authors of books and other literary works to secure copyright by registration, prior to publication. Under the present law, these works can only be copyrighted by publication with notice of copyright-while composers, playwrights and other authors are permitted to secure copyright either by publication, or by registration of an unpublished work. There is no reason for this discrimination and it ultimately would be cured by the Revision Bill. As the Copyright Office makes clear, there are sound reasons for adopting H.R. 7149 now, rather than waiting for the enactment of the Revision Bill to accomplished changes in fees, group registrations of periodical contributions and registration of unpublished literary works. Even if passed sooner than anticipated, the Copyright Revision Bill could not take effect for at least a year thereafter, to give the Copyright Office time to prepare for administration of the new law. This means that authors of short stories, articles, poems and other periodical contributions would have to pay inordinately high registration fees, for renewal copyrights maturing during the next 18 to 24 months. There is no reason to prolong this inequity. Consequently, the Authors League respectfully urges that your Subcommittee approve H.R. 7149, and recommend its immediate approval by the Judiciary Committee and its prompt enactment, this session, by the House of Representatives. Sincerely yours IRWIN KARP, Counsel. THE AUTHORS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC.. Hon. ROBERT KASTEN MEIER, DEAR CHAIRMAN KASTEN MEIER: An Authors League member has called to our attention two ambiguities in Sections 203 and 304 (c) of the Copyright Revision Bill. We believe these should be resolved by amplifying the Committee's report and perhaps by minor language changes in the sections. (i) Sections 203 and 304 (c) are intended to permit authors and their heirs to terminate "long-term" transfers and licenses-i.e. those exceeding thirty-five years. However, the section might be interpreted to mean that unless the author or heirs followed the termination procedure, a license for a shorter-than-35-yearterm would continue for the duration of the copyright. This, of course, was not the intention. But Sec. 204(b)(6) somewhat ambiguously states that unless termination is effected under the section, a grant-"if it does not provide otherwise" continues for the duration of the copyright. We believe this language means-unless the grant specifies a shorter term. Nonetheless, the language could be read as requiring a specific provision in the grant stating that Subsection 6 does not apply. This would be a dangerous trap for authors, and would deprive most of the benefit of the section. Given this possibility, the complexity of the entire section and the newness of its approach, some clarification is desirable. Therefore we urge that the Committee report eliminate doubts by adding a sentence explaining that Sections 203 and 304 (c) do not extend any license or transfer made for a period of less than thirty-five years. We also suggest another sentence explaining that the phrase "if it does not provide otherwise", in Sec. 203 (b) (6) and Sec. 304 (c) (6) (F), means that the agreement does not provide for a term of less than thirty-five years. (ii) We also think it is essential that the Report stress that these two subsections do not change the rules of contract law which permit an author to terminate a license, transfer or assignment when the user fails to exploit the copyright or exclusive rights transferred thereby. Indeed, we think it might be well to add language to Subsections 203(b) (5) and 304 (c) (6) (E) making it clearer that such well-established rights of termination are among those preserved by these subsections. Sincerely, IRWIN KARP, Counsel. Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, NASHVILLE, TENN., October 28, 1975. Chairman, Committee of Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KASTEN MEIER: Last June I had the privilege of appearing before the House Subcommittee considering the revision of the Copyright Law to speak in support of the above sections proposed in amendments submitted by Senator Howard Baker and other Senators. These amendments were approved in the bill passed by the Senate in 1974. They were designed to grant libraries the right to archive television news programs and make them available for reference, research, and study. Understanding that these amendments have again come to your attention in the hearings on the bill, I again express my hope that nothing will be done in the new Copyright Bill to prevent libraries and archives throughout the country from establishing audiovisual news collections just as, for many years, they have routinely kept print news collections. While it is doubtless true that the expense of present technology itself now limits the number of audiovisual collections in libraries, this will not always be the case. Developments in technology where audiovisual material is concerned, similar to microfilm and microfiche for print materials, are taking place. These will make audiovisual news collections infinitely more practicable in the future. It is extremely fortunate that U.S. Copyright Laws have never prevented libraries around the country from collecting print news and making it available for reference, research, and study. Since the development of microfilm and microfiche these print news collections have proliferated, adding stature and significance to countless information sources throughout the nation. It can be expected that technological advances will make the same thing possible with respect to audiovisual news collections. For the law to prevent this from happening simply because audiovisual news has been initially circulated as image and sound rather than as printed matter would be an error, especially as the fact is unquestioned that today the most heavily relied upon news is that which comes to the public via the audiovisual medium. At the moment there is only one television news archive in the nation whose collection systematically covers all three commercial networks. This is the Television News Archive at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. While many persons are not yet really aware of its existence, the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, begun in 1968, is already a matter of lively interest and use throughout the country. The scope and depth of this interest and use is evident from the enclosed information: (1) a listing of uses in a recent two-day period; (2) a report on uses of the collection since 1971. Along with many others I believe it would be wrong for the Copyright Law to prevent the making of such collections and/or making them accessible to the academic sector and the public as a whole. I hope the amendments will be retained. PAUL C. SIMPSON. INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Hon. ROBERT W. KASTEN MEIER, DEAR BOB: Your continued efforts to obtain a resolution of outstanding differences in the copyright field are much appreciated. We welcome this opportunity to share with you our perceptions of the progress that has been made and the issues remaining. You are aware of the efforts of the Copyright Conference and its Working Group. While efforts of the Working Group to define in practical terms the boundaries of systematic copying were fruitless, a good faith effort was made. The fact that the library community intended to seek exemptions for library photocopying in this revision cycle quickly emerged. Efforts to pin down a definition of "systematic" run counter to such exemptions and were eventually abandoned in favor of detailed and productive consideration of alternative payments mechanisms. The parties to these latter discussions found them extremely useful in coming to a better understanding of each other's problems, methods of operation, and points of view. The impending study of inter-library loan transactions and payments mechanisms is based on the fuller mutual understandings derived from these discussions. In effect, however, the working group agreed to disagree on how or even whether, "systematic" copying should be defined. We believe the bill's language distinguishing between isolated and unrelated photocopying by individuals as "fair use" and "systematic" photocopying as an infringing activity is an absolutely essential ingredient in the revision bill. We urge that it be retained in the form in which it passed the Senate in the last Congress. A recent development involving the British Library Lending Division and the Center for Research Libraries exemplifies the alternative that faces libraries and publishers in its absence. It also raises questions with regard to the consistency between § 108 and § 602. The enclosed copies of Newsletters (attachments A and B) issued this past spring and summer by the Center for Research Libraries embody the details of the "systematic" approach the CRL is taking to inter-library photocopying practices. All the elements of the republishing business are to be found in this arrangement: (1) a source of supply, (2) a membership arrangement by which these services are paid for, (3) detailed arrangements for identifying user needs and in obtaining fulfillment copies, and (4) alternative networks for ordering (by mail, Telex and Tymnet network). The logical extension and stated objective of this effort is to "discover whether there is not a large number of journals for which one copy could adequately serve U.S., British and Canadian users." (attachment C). At an Engineering Foundation Conference held in August, 1975 a British Library Lending Division (BLLD) official described in detail the operations of BLLD. This represents the furthest advance in the application of information technology and business administration to republishing via photocopying. No copyright permissions are sought. It is a "mail order" operation. Conveyor belts connect photocopying units with mail room facilities. No reading room facilities are provided; it exists almost solely to distribute copies made from its holdings. It has found that it is cheaper to photocopy a journal article than to lend the original. Savings in subscription costs and in storage and processing charges result. The number of photocopies made increased from 13,000 in 1963 to 900,000 in 1974 from 7% to 60% of total "loans". The machine operations involve strategically located Rank-Xerox machines throughout the library placing operators close to the stacks. Speed of service is emphasized. Rank-Xerox Copyflo machines are used, but only in the morning. (It is cheaper, but somewhat slower). After lunch all orders are processed on Rank-Xerox machines to facilitate their being mailed that day. The U.S. National Library of Medicine obtains 5,000 items per year from BLLD. The arrangement with the Center for Research Libraries is expected to generate about 200 requests per day or, based on 200 days per year. 40,000 requests per year. The orders depend on a system of prepayment. A book of 20 order forms is sold for 15 British pounds. The order forms or coupons have a value equal to a 10 page article returned by air mail (see attachments D and E). Multiple coupons are needed for articles exceeding 10 pages. If libraries are granted photocopying exemptions this is the kind of massive republishing various libraries and library consortia will undertake. CRL is already gearing up to perform this function nationally. Copyright will become meaningless and all published material will essentially fall into the public domain under this library republishing pressure. The economic basis for creating and maintaining the channels through which ideas are formalized and distributed will be destroyed. The objective of one copy of a journal adequately serving U.S., British and Canadian users may have initial economic attraction for libraries, but since, in the long run, it will eliminate all but government subsidized journals, it is not consistent with the purposes of copyright or the concept of freedom of the press in this country. The Copyright Conference study of inter-library loans and payments mechanism has significance at this point. The publisher group is not opposed to photocopying in inter-library loan transactions. It was interested primarily in assuring a continued basis for economically viable publishing efforts. The study seeks to evaluate a system to provide such a basis under copyright. II. The advent of this overseas photocopying service raises the question whether the provisions of § 602 are consistent with the "systematic" language of § 108. If, for argument, it is conceded that the business operations of the British Library Lending Division are "systematic" in nature and are specifically covered by the language of § 108(a) does the language of § 602 (a) (3) exempt the distribution of copies to U.S. users by BLLD? There appears to be a loophole in the law when these two sections are read together. It appears that § 602(a) (3) exempts foreign libraries who engage in the kind of "systematic" photocopying specifically covered by § 108 (g). The saving clause, § 602(b) only prohibits importation and apparently denies the copyright owner other remedies. Since BLLD returns photocopies of articles by air mail, the practical problems involved in identifying infringing works as they enter the U.S. renders this provision meaningless. We believe this loophole should be closed: § 602(a)(3) should be amended to make it consistent with § 108 (g); and § 602(b) should be amended to provide the copyright owner his full range of remedies against imported infringing works. One philosophic note in this bicentennial year. The Statute of Queen Anne is often cited as the source of our copyright law. This is true but in a reverse sort of way. While the Statute of Queen Anne laid the ground work for a crowncopyright, our forefathers reversed the process by granting copyright to authors, rather than to the government to avoid government control and to assure a free press mechanism. The erosion of private copyright represented by efforts to exempt library photocopying attacks this very basic and historic fact on which our sophisticated, and delicately balanced system of freedom of expression depends. We strongly support the distinctions drawn between isolated and unrelated reproduction and distributing, on the one hand, and systematic reproduction or distribution, on the other, as a sound basis for facilitating the application of information technologies and for maintaining the economic viability of the entire information distribution system in the U.S. so essential to the promotion of science and the useful arts. Thank you for your efforts in this area. PAUL G. ZURKOWSKI. [From Special Issue, July 25, 1975] CENTER FOR RESEARCH LIBRARIES TO FILL LOAN REQUESTS FOR ALL CURRENT JOURNALS IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES At its annual meeting on 14 April, the Center's Council voted unanimously to have the Center increase its journals project to include the coverage of all currently published journals in science, technology, and the social sciences. The increased coverage will become effective July 1, 1975. Complete details about coverage and procedures for requesting journal articles will be issued to all 57-786 76 pt. 3 51 |